tv [untitled] July 12, 2014 12:30pm-1:01pm PDT
mention is the commissioners have asked and i believe commissioner adam has promised on many occasionses that the port commission will have off-site meetings. our goal is to hold two meetings each calendar year. we will have our first outside meeting on the september 23rd meeting which will be at the southeast community center. so, we'll be putting up more information about that. but i just wanted to let everyone know there is a second meeting in september, we will be meeting in the southern waterfront area which i think will be a great opportunity for us to hold our meeting and hear from some of the constituents that reside in that area of the waterfront and we will continue to plan for a second meeting in the coming months. i want to do one more thing. hot off the press today is the small business exchange's
periodical featuring commission president leslie katz. the article goes on and on and on, which is fantastic. it's actually a really, really good article and gives great kudos to the work that the port is doing, meeting and exceeding our mandates for participation by local business enterprises and some of the novel ideas that we are piloting such as the pier 33 opportunity. so, thank you very much, president katz, for agreeing to appear so prominently on behalf of the port. and that concludes my remarks. >> is there any public comment? good afternoon, commissioners. my name is corin woods [speaker not understood]. i wanted to talk about the two civil grand jury reports which,
quite frankly, pissed me off outrageously. i think that one would see the presentation on sea level rise later today, you'll be able to see why we missed a lot on what's already existing and what's already happening in the city. but a far more direct concern to me is the one about the port ~. i think they missed an awful lot. they missed the fact that -- i think there is a significant amount of community outreach and involvement in all the port does. i think that all of the projects that i've worked on with the port over the last 20 years have had a lot of planning. they aren't -- i get it that there has been political interference in some projects
and that's not good, but i think that the overall approach of the port staff and commission has been thoughtful, thorough, and ethical and effective. and i think the grand jury doesn't get the fact that there are external constraints that the port ha to deal with. they talk about changing the [speaker not understood] passenger services act right. ~ people have been trying to do that for however many years it's been in existence. they talk about increasing cargo work at the port. i know from every time i've worked with the southern waterfront advisory group and the maritime people how hard the port is working to increase its maritime cargo work in the port. i know that on the seawall lot
37 pier 70 projects, the extent of the outreach and planning that has gone on. and i hope that when the port responds to the civil grand jury report, they can very politely say, "you got it wrong, guys." please stand up for yourselves. defend yourselves. you do great work. and i don't like to see it ignored and trivialized. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, commissioners' reports. anyone have any? commissioner adams. >> i'd like to thank commissioner woo ho, [speaker
not understood], they all came down to the rule committee. appreciate your support, what you had to say. i will say this as a commissioner. i make no apologies to anybody about the work that this commission has done. i'm glad that the other commissioners that i serve with, we've been open. we've taken on controversial issues. nobody gets it right all the time. i think this is the time for us to reassess where we're going, where we're going to continue to move forward. and we will continue to think out of the box. and we understand -- and we're trying to communicate to a city that they have a waterfront. they don't know there is a port here. nobody from the civil grand jury came to talk to me. i'm a 35 year member [speaker not understood]. i know more about ports than most people ever think about. and i go to all 29 west coast ports because we represent the worker in those ports. but in saying that, people have
a right to their opinion, but i will say this september we have the opening of the [speaker not understood] cruise terminal. we have other important projects that we're trying to get forward because one thing that this commission understands, some people don't get. this port belongs to every citizen in san francisco, california, whether you have money or not, and i've always said that. that's why we're even going out into the community because sometimes the community can't come up here to the ivory towers so we're going out into the community. we want to educate them about their port. this is their port. they have to be engaged. we listen. but sometimes you have to make decisions. this commission doesn't waiver. we have backbone. we will make a decision that may piss some people off. but so be it, we're not afraid to make some decisions. i can tell you myself i'm not running for a job in city hall, i'm not running for a job in sacramento and i'm not running
for a job in washington, d.c. i serve at the whim of the citizens of this city. i'm a working class union leader. i'm a very powerful militant leader. i make no apologies, i make no apologies for the other four commissioners i serve with. i know the time they put in. as the vice president of the commission, you can't believe all the meetings that the president and vice president have to go through. when [speaker not understood] was the president, this commission and this port, we were right in the middle of a typhoon. she was skipper along with monique and guided us. we didn't always get it right. we heard what they had to say about proposition. we're going to listen. we're going to reevaluate our self. but i'm going to tell you, we're going to keep moving forward. we make no apologies and we will do what's best for every citizen. and i don't care what people write, how many reports, whatever, we're going to stand strong to our values and what we think is right because we represent the citizens of this city. >> commissioner?
[speaker not understood]. >> commissioner adams said it all. he said it for me. i don't need to say anything. >> any other? thank you for your comments and i would just like to say one thing that i'm pleased about, is that people are actually focusing on the port and the waterfront. i think all too often it's been a forgotten part of the city and one of the thing i'm very pleased and proud of, [speaker not understood] it has become recognized as such an important part of the fabric of san francisco and all the work that's been done to provide opportunities and activities throughout the city. so, i'm pleased that we've had such focus and scrutiny. it may not always be exactly what we'd want, but as a friend of mine says, at least some publicity -- any publicity is good publicity. i'm not sure about that, but i am pleased that people are focusing on the extraordinary opportunities and what the waterfront has to offer across
the board, so many levels. i feel like i'm going to be doing a little bit of what i did last summer, my summer report, but that's for a later item and it does [speaker not understood] further on seawall -- sea level rise and that the seawall. so, i'll be reserving some of my [speaker not understood] for commissioner report for that item. and i even have show and tell. commissioner woo ho. >> i wanted to thank the various people that came down to support my renomination. i think we've been through a tough period in terms of lots of thing we've done. i think commissioner adams has summarized. and i believe i can say again for myself and for the other commissioner that we actually look at things very objectively. we listen very intently to the public and to the comments that we receive and we balance. at the end we have to make a
decision. and i think that we feel that in most cases we've made the right decision. it's not easy in this city because everybody has a voice and everybody has an interest. and i think that we will continue in that vein. we do represent different constituents. we don't come from the same cloth. everyone has different points of view. it's amazing we have coalesced in many cases on issues because we don't see the same thing, we don't see the elephant the same way. we touch it different places, but we do sort of help each other with the diversity of opinion and diversity of thought and diversity of background to come and reach our conclusions. and i think this commission and i can attest, and i think now leslie and willie know how much work that kim and i had to do. and, so, we were very happy to share the load and pass it on to them. but this commission does work very hard and there's a lot that perhaps not the public see all the time, but i think that
we do, we do try to do the best. i think we're all very proud of what we've done so far. and, of course, things can always be improved. and i think we want to continue to be open and transparent and we urge the staff to be the same way. and i think that's true, and they are open to hearing from us and there is no issue there. there is very good communications among the community. as well as with the mayor's office as well. i think we should be aware of that and if we have to state it, we don't state it here publicly, we should say it periodically so people do realize that there is a process, there is a strong process, we believe in the process, and it sometimes frustrates people because it takes longer. there's more people, more things, but we get through t. i think we, i think we are here for that purpose. and as commissioner adams said, we are here for the port, the people of san francisco, and none of us -- we don't have any interest, we're not paid. we have no dog in these fights. we don't work for developers. we work for what we think is
best for the city. thank you. >> and i again would just like to congratulate commissioner woo ho, katz and adams on their reappointment to the port commission. and i look forward to working with you guys for at least another three years. [laughter] >> so, the good times and the tough time. so, congratulations. >> thank you. >> thank you. (applause) >> [speaker not understood]. cover the next item. >> public comment? >> public comment? on commissioners' reports? seeing none, next item. >> items on the consent calendar, item 10 a., request approval to issue a request for proposals for an engineering services contract to complete an earthquake vulnerability assessment and retrofit alternatives study of the port's seawall. item 10 b, request authorization to issue a request for proposals for up to two youth employment services organizationses to administer the port's youth employment program, with maximum term of four years in the amount of $265,000 annually, and a total amount not to exceed $1,060,000.
item 10 c, request to award contracts to two firms: eagle environmental construction and environmental logistics for haer did you say waste disposal services, each in the amount of $187,500, with an initial term of three years and the port's option to extend the term an additional year at an additional amount of $75,000 for each contract, each contract will have a maximum amount of $262,500, totaling $525,000 for both contracts. >> so moved. is there a second? >> second. >> can we take item 10 b off? i just have a question, a quick question regarding that item. >> sure. >> i would support commissioner brandon's move because i also have a question, too. >> we'll take 10 a and c.
is there public comment? seeing none, all in favor of consent calendar items 10 a and c signify by aye. >> aye. >> opposed? abstentionses? ~ now we can take item 10 b. >> my question on 10 b is i'm not quite sure what the selection criteria is. if someone could just briefly tell me what the selection will be based on. >> good afternoon, commissioners. megan wallace, budget manager, currently helping cover contracts. we have quite a variety of criteria for the selection. i know that -- actually, if you'll give me a moment, i would like to reference my notes.
so, really, some of the key elements are going to be the number of participants. the contract, proposers need to have up to 10 participants as well as two supervisors for the programs. they're going to have to have a subcontractor. so, we may reflect up to two contracts, but each of those contractors will also need to have subcontractors. and they'll need to be able to maintain the key functions of the program, meaning maintain youth employment, supervise staff, supervise the youth and be able to do the maintenance programs, monitor the performance as well as the performance of their subcontractors, sort of a
variety of factor. is there any particular area -- >> well, i understand what's in the staff report, but i'm just wondering if there's any experience or financial qualifications or anything -- i mean, how would this be monitored? how would that be evaluated? can any organization come up with 10 kids and two supervisors and apply for this contract? >> there is a scoring criteria in front of you, megan? >> i don't unfortunately. >> is it similar to the criteria that was used during the last selection process after the commission weighed in on some of the concerns i've had? >> yes, we definitely have been looking back at that process and trying to make sure that we're addressing those needs. it doesn't tend to go over much of the detail of the scoring criteria because the rfp hasn't been proposed -- hasn't been submitted. perhaps that's something we can
share off line after, after the meeting as far as -- not wanting to disclose too much publicly prior to the proposal going -- >> so, along the lines of commissioner brandon's questions, we spent a lot of time designing performance metrics. we want to encourage participants. we're concerned about the funding for the program, how it's allocated between overhead and the actual expenses that were spent on the youth, et cetera, et cetera, and i think we came up with some performance metrics. so, i think in the rfp if we're going to have some of the existing vendors who are actually going to be bidding again, then i think that we need to have a history of how they've actually performed against those metrics. and i understand that period of time may not have been that long. maybe, i don't know, about a year or a little less than that. but i think we want to see the history because we design those metrics and then to have them come back and just say what we promised to do. we want to see what you actually did.
and, so, it that's what my question is to see, to make sure the rfp does put in what the performance metrics were so they understand and if there is any new data they under that. and if there is any existing -- whoever the existing contract holders are, that they would be also submitting how they've actually done against those criteria that we set forth for them. >> good afternoon, elaine forbes, finance and administration staff. i want to talk about the scoring criteria we developed for the request for proposal. we did have an excellent conversation for the award. the last contract that we drafted into the performance metrics for the award that is current and for the contractor selection and evaluation criteria, we've marrowed much of that language. we're looking at firm and program staff qualifications as one set program approach that only -- not only looks at the
clarity and how participants are recruited. so, we're looking at neighborhood participation from the southeast community, san francisco-based kids, but also the adequacy of the program. we are looking at program budget in term of how many of the dollars flow to the youth versus administrative costs which were of interest and area of concern for the commission. and also the hours that the kids are working out on the port property is also something that we'll be evaluating. as ms. wallace was pointing out, we've structured this a bit differently in that we're really looking for maximum participation. we've said we may award up to two primeses. we want maximum participation and [speaker not understood] looked at really doing extra outreach for this effort to make sure the word is out that we are looking for different proposers to come in and give us proposals. so, we not only are out
providing for the subconsultant contractor opportunity, but also to really get [speaker not understood] because that was a concern for the commission last time. >> thank you. >> is there a motion? >> there was a notion for all three, seconded, extended public comment [speaker not understood]. >> public comment on item 10 b? seeing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? abstentionses? item 10 b carries. call the next item. >> item 11 a, request authorization to award construction contract 2758r, bayview gateway park project, to bauman landscape & construction, inc., in the amount of $3,667,925, and authorization for a contract contingency fund of 10% of the contract amount (or $366,793) for unanticipated contingencies, for a total authorization not to exceed $4,034,718.
>> good afternoon, commissioners, president katz, congratulations. executive director meyer, port staff and members of the public my name is steve [speaker not understood]. i'm a project manager in the engineering division. i'm a code project manager with [speaker not understood] for this project, the bayview gateway. this item is a request for authorization to award the construction contract, 27 58 r for construction of the new bayview gateway ~ open space located on the south bank of business creek between 23rd illinois and cargo. the director's recommendation is to approve the recommendation.
[speaker not understood] december 12 port commission authorized staff to advertise construction contract 27 58 gateway and tulare park project for competitive bidding. the bayview gateway project will be a new 1.5 acre public open space, the site of a vacant asphalt lot and dilapidated [speaker not understood]. the project will open the waterfront for public access and enjoyment by demolishing the wharf constructing a new promenade structure on the water's edge, transferring the asphalt [speaker not understood] into green landscape. it will create sites for the coming bayview gateway. art project at third and cargo streets, san francisco art commission project for permanent display of art on each side of third street. this is tulare park is not being awarded to. ~ today. [speaker not under am [speaker
not understood]. ~ a bridge was chosen as the means for this to avoid a 60-inch diameter sewage forced main that runs through the park. the forced main is the primary outfall for the san francisco public utilities commission southeast treatment sewage plants. you can see the force main. it's the dashed black line on the plan. so, the reasons for combining the two projects which were discussed before is those are funded by the 2008 parks general obligation bond with similar delivery schedules that are on opposite sides of the creek channel. they include marine structural work. combining and minimizes conflicts in the limited channel work area.
single mobilization of equipment including expensive pile driving barge, we'll save money [speaker not understood]. and the economy of scale for marine and park work. and the bid results were not good. we advertised the project march 5th, prebid meeting was held on march 26th, we had good attendance [speaker not understood] contract assistance center. we opened bids on may 14th, which was quite a long bid period, and we only received two bids. one of those was responsive, the other was un. the low bid was $5,1 52,000, 40% above our estimate. the bayview portion was approximately 4 million and the tulare 1.2 million. what happened ~? the 60-inch sfpuc force main that runs through tulare park scared contractors away.
the risk of damaging the force main pile driving nearby was too much for some contractors to bid on the project. we expected 4 to 5 bidders. that was the early indication. so, we only got two. only one was responsive. that low responsive bid was from shimick construction who built the illinois street bridge adjacent to this park and who successfully drove piles adjacent to the force main. they have done it before. they were the only contractors who were willing to bid on it. the other thing we noticed, there are escalating costs right now in the construction environment and, so, this also helped to drive up the costs. the findings aren't sufficient to deliver both parks as designed, so, we reevaluated our next steps. the main drivers, we have our main work window of june through november.
so, if we lose that this year we're sitting on the side lines until june of next year. so, we decided to rebid bayview gateway by itself and to reevaluate tulare park to see what could be done there. in addition, we reallocated some of the funding from flare aloe park to bayview. they're both geo bond funded projects. so, the rebid of bayview gateway, it was a quick rebid. we revised the estimate to 3.3 million. we advertised it on may 30th. we did not hold a prebid meeting. we did outreach to all the same contractors. they all knew it was coming. we highlighted the changes. we opened bids on june 11. we got five bids this time. ranging from 3.7 million to 4.2 million. a median of about 4. the low bid, just under 3.7 million, 11% above the revised
estimate. with the funding from tulare park, this is a contract that we can award. and the low bidders bauman construction incorporated, they are a experienced contractor in san francisco. they were the team that did the brannan street wharf, they did the top side work. they are currently working on northeast plaza. they completed [speaker not understood] play grounds and the lafayette park renovation. they are hrc certified local bidness enterprise and they will be self-performing a majority of the work. at least 60% according to their bid. ~ business enterprise [speaker not understood] construction which completed the brannan street wharf, the contractor for that. did annex leapt job.
[speaker not understood] ~ pier one half, and lbe port tenants. and their bid meets the 12% lbe subcontractor goal for participation of subcontractors. so, quite pleased with that bid. the schedule, moving forward after today, if the commission authorizes us to award, we estimate a notice to proceed august 11th the complete -- i guess it's time to complete water work by november 30th deadline. a substantial completion march 9th and open to the public and finally completes in may of next year. i'll skip the slide. i'm going to go to -- i'm going to address climate change briefly. the sea level rise presentation next. just wanted to show you this area of [speaker not understood] creek.
the project was designed based upon criteria that we had been using of 16 inches of rise by 20 50, 55 inches by 20 '02 100. we look at the design life project, 50 year design life, takes us out to 20 65. we're looking about 28 inches of see level rise by that point. ~ sea level rise by that point. this is a low lying area of the city ~. and this particular location between two bridges at illinois street and third street is a low spot. we designed the park to kind of raise that area up such that by 20 65 we meet the criteria to prevent overtoppingusing the 28 inches. i'll just throw up a couple slides with the current criteria which changed a little bit, but not too much. here's the 100 year still water inundation map at 2015. so, when the project is built.
and you can see there's a little dot in the center of the screen. that's the project location. there are some areas of flooding along the creek. this project is not one of them. using the current guidance being recommended from the city -- >> s.f. adopt? >> s.f. adopt, thank you. you look at a range of sea level rise. so, 20 65, the lowest 7 inches we're okay. 20 65 [speaker not understood], 17 inches, we plan for 28. you can see flooding in the area. the park will not flood -- this is a tool that we've been using in engineering and planning. its doesn't account for the new construction. there's 20 65 with 33 inches. so, considerable flooding in the .